Oh wow... this is getting funnier by the nanosecond. It's almost too much lolz!

Give us some examples of what's making you laugh? be specific. I know what's making me laugh. Ahmed is so arrogant and obnoxious yet so emotional, but what's even funnier is he is trying to act like one of those arrogant preachers that say (pbuh) after the mention of Jesus and Muhammad.

1 Chronicles 18:4 "And David took from him 1,000 chariots, 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers."

2 Samuel 8:4 "And David took from him 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers."

So regardless of the author or time, or the conversion of chariots to horsemen, we have two completely diffrent numbers here. One claims 7000 horsemen + chariots, while the other claims 1700 horsemen and without any chariots.

Give us some examples of what's making you laugh? be specific. I know what's making me laugh. Ahmed is so arrogant and obnoxious yet so emotional, but what's even funnier is he is trying to act like one of those arrogant preachers that say (pbuh) after the mention of Jesus and Muhammad.

That you're both doing the exact same thing - starting with assumptions you hold true but cannot prove and then quoting a book which you, again, assume but can't prove is true, to disprove the beliefs of those you argue with, who do the exact same thing:

- "My magic book is true, and yours isn't!"- "No! It's the other way around!"- "Baloney! My magic book says X which proves yours is false!"- "Nonsense! My magic book says Y which proves yours is false!"- "You're following a false god!"- "No! You're following a false god!"

And what's funnier still is that you both agree that this qualifies as a rational debate...

That you're both doing the exact same thing - starting with assumptions you hold true but cannot prove and then quoting a book which you, again, assume but can't prove is true, to disprove the beliefs of those you argue with, who do the exact same thing:

- "My magic book is true, and yours isn't!"- "No! It's the other way around!"- "Baloney! My magic book says X which proves yours is false!"- "Nonsense! My magic book says Y which proves yours is false!"- "You're following a false god!"- "No! You're following a false god!"

And what's funnier still is that you both agree that this qualifies as a rational debate...

That's not really what's happening here, at least not from myself. I'm saying their God is the same as mine, that Jesus' teachings in the Bible are for the most part accurate, but that the majority of today's Christians don't follow Jesus' teachings and instead follow what other people (Paul, Council of Nicea, etc.) said about him, and that our book (Quran) is a progression from the Bible as the New Testament is to the Old. And yes the one thing you got correct is that I'm saying their book does contain human error, lost manuscripts, and disagreement over authenticity, luckily none of which are the case for the Quran.

That's not really what's happening here, at least not from myself. I'm saying their God is the same as mine, that Jesus' teachings in the Bible are for the most part accurate, but that the majority of today's Christians don't follow Jesus' teachings and instead follow what other people (Paul, Council of Nicea, etc.) said about him, and that our book (Quran) is a progression from the Bible as the New Testament is to the Old. And yes the one thing you got correct is that I'm saying their book does contain human error, lost manuscripts, and disagreement over authenticity, luckily none of which are the case for the Quran.

In other words, you're saying that the particular god they follow (in the person of Jesus) is a false god, and cite, as your "proof" your book, which you consider an unerring source of truth, to prove their book (or at least their interpretation of it), which they consider an unerring source of truth, wrong.

What's happening here, bigbobs, is exactly what I described above. And that you don't see it makes it even funnier.

As for that last gem of sentence... the Quran contains more than it's share of blatant errors. In Surah 16:68, for example, Allah commands the bee to "eat of all fruits" but of course bees don't eat fruits. In Surah 51:49, Allah claims to have created everything in pairs, another clear error. Either these are human errors or they are errors by Allah. Which option do you prefer? Either is fine by me, since both shatter the assertions you make about the Quran.

There are two greek words - "pais" and "huios" that are translated as "son" in the Bible. "Pais" is derived from Hebrew "ebed," which means servant or slave. Therefore, the primary translation of "pais theou" is "servant of God" with "son of God" being the biased mistranslation.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament quotes "The Hebrew original of pais in the phrase pais theou, i.e. ebed, carries a stress on personal relationship and has first the sense of "slave.""

However, Bible translators use "servant" for "Pais Theou" in some verses describing David and Israel, but "son" or "holy child" when referring to Jesus. Same greek phrase, but selective English translations.

1 Chronicles 18:4 "And David took from him 1,000 chariots, 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers."

2 Samuel 8:4 "And David took from him 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers."

So regardless of the author or time, or the conversion of chariots to horsemen, we have two completely diffrent numbers here. One claims 7000 horsemen + chariots, while the other claims 1700 horsemen and without any chariots.

There are also others I posted and many many more I can post.

Yes ,sorry I was typing to fast and erased a paragraph and forgot to re-type it, anyway we don't go by the English standard version, we go by the king James and the king James says...

1000 chariots and 700 horsemen not 1700 horsemen, you follow;

so 1000 chariots = 9000 men and out of the 9000 men he capture 6300, the author wrote the chariot he capture including the men that where part of the chariots

the other author wrote the chariots then he included the men on the chariot and the 700 horsemen to = 7000. If you study your history you would know that the 700 men where back up men on horses to replace any injured horse and or men from the chariots. In this case they would sent out 1000 chariots( =9000men ) and then they would send out 1000 men on horses as back up.

Lmao; oh you don't think that when that many people surrender, they all surrender do you? lol, obviously not, you have some cowards that run away and some that won't like the idea.

So regardless of the author or time, or the conversion of chariots to horsemen

Are you out of your mind? this is very important to any meaning, do you think the sayings of the 17th centuries are the same as today? Of course not, look, plain and simple 1 counted the men on the chariots and 1 didn't, simple, or do you think there was 1000 chariots with no men on them

In other words, you're saying that the particular god they follow (in the person of Jesus) is a false god, and cite, as your "proof" your book, which you consider an unerring source of truth, to prove their book (or at least their interpretation of it), which they consider an unerring source of truth, wrong.

What's happening here, bigbobs, is exactly what I described above. And that you don't see it makes it even funnier.

As for that last gem of sentence... the Quran contains more than it's share of blatant errors. In Surah 16:68, for example, Allah commands the bee to "eat of all fruits" but of course bees don't eat fruits. In Surah 51:49, Allah claims to have created everything in pairs, another clear error. Either these are human errors or they are errors by Allah. Which option do you prefer? Either is fine by me, since both shatter the assertions you make about the Quran.

lol, you just don't get it no matter how hard you try, that is actually funny to us, you see bigbob and I believe (100%) about the beginning, we believe Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Abraham Isaac and jacob where real men that played key role in humanity and we also believe in the flood. You see bogbobs has NOT told me what he believes because he does not have to.

I already know because there is a pattern between the "theology" (for lack of a better term) on events that took place and you guys can't see this pattern cause you are blinded by your evolution theory. So these things are not necessary for us to argue cause we both know that these events took place. The funny thing is from your perspective we are arguing all kinds of things, but reality is we are in agreement about 90% of things, just not everything.

lol, you just don't get it no matter how hard you try, that is actually funny to us, you see bigbob and I believe (100%) about the beginning, we believe Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Abraham Isaac and jacob where real men that played key role in humanity and we also believe in the flood. You see bogbobs has NOT told me what he believes because he does not have to.

You're right about one thing: there is something I don't understand: why you think that your "beliefs" - which you cannot defend without resorting to circular reasoning and unprovable assertions involving hand-waving - merit any serious consideration.

I already know because there is a pattern between the "theology" (for lack of a better term) on events that took place and you guys can't see this pattern cause you are blinded by your evolution theory.

Ahh... yes... it's us who are blinded and can't see the pattern, because of evolution. If only we had a little faith, our eyes would be magically opened by a mystical, magical ability, letting us see things for what they really are, behind the veil of reality and the confusion of logic.

So these things are not necessary for us to argue cause we both know that these events took place.

No. You don't know that these events took place. You believe that these events took place. That you and bigbobs agree they happened doesn't mean they did happen. There is a difference between knowing something and believing something. Especially in your case, where you believe certain things not only in the absence of, but actually contrary to observable evidence.

The funny thing is from your perspective we are arguing all kinds of things, but reality is we are in agreement about 90% of things, just not everything.

The funny thing is that your debates and arguments involve no logic, just specious reasoning based on unproven assertions and boil down to one thing: both sides yelling the same thing, back and forth, louder and louder: "My interpretation of my holy book says X. That contradicts yours. Therefore yours is wrong because my holy book is the divinely inspired, inerrant word of god! YOU'RE WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"

^^^ lol, No bro there is a point to the points we are making. Actually bigbob has very good points and he always brings a valid discussion, Ahmed on the hand is just out to lunch, he just randomly babbles on and on with no valid points or logic, so I don't even like addressing him cause it is a one way discussion

That you're both doing the exact same thing - starting with assumptions you hold true but cannot prove and then quoting a book which you, again, assume but can't prove is true, to disprove the beliefs of those you argue with, who do the exact same thing:

- "My magic book is true, and yours isn't!"- "No! It's the other way around!"- "Baloney! My magic book says X which proves yours is false!"- "Nonsense! My magic book says Y which proves yours is false!"- "You're following a false god!"- "No! You're following a false god!"

And what's funnier still is that you both agree that this qualifies as a rational debate...

He forgets he believes we come from monkies and that they come from rodents and that ultimately we all come from sea creatures that magically occured through an accident.

Clearly I am anti-science for disbelieving this Even though I can describe the make up and workings of a cell while Darwin only saw a blob. Oh and might I remind fellow atheists he said his visual observation belief 'theory' would fall apart if a complex organism were to be found

He forgets he believes we come from monkies and that they come from rodents and that ultimately we all come from sea creatures that magically occured through an accident.

Clearly I am anti-science for disbelieving this Even though I can describe the make up and workings of a cell while Darwin only saw a blob. Oh and might I remind fellow atheists he said his visual observation belief 'theory' would fall apart if a complex organism were to be found

Clearly I am anti-science for disbelieving this Even though I can describe the make up and workings of a cell while Darwin only saw a blob. Oh and might I remind fellow atheists he said his visual observation belief 'theory' would fall apart if a complex organism were to be found

No. You are anti-science because you believe that faith in the absence of evidence is a valid tools of acquiring knowledge. You are anti-science because you consider supernatural answers to natural questions as valid and proper. You are anti-science because you are not willing to even consider any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are anti-science because you consider "god did it!" to be an answer.

That you are able to google the description of a cell and paste it here doesn't make you pro-science. Even if you memorized it and could repeat it, word for word, on demand, that wouldn't make you pro-science, anymore than it would make you a scientist.

As for what you claim I said, can you provide the exact quote from me? I bet you can't and you're just making stuff up. Bad Muslim! Don't make me get the can of coins!

The difference between my "belief" and yours is that mine is based on observed evidence and a theory that is falsifiable - i.e. one that makes predictions that can be tested and proven.

No. You are anti-science because you believe that faith in the absence of evidence is a valid tools of acquiring knowledge. You are anti-science because you consider supernatural answers to natural questions as valid and proper. You are anti-science because you are not willing to even consider any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are anti-science because you consider "god did it!" to be an answer.

That you are able to google the description of a cell and paste it here doesn't make you pro-science. Even if you memorized it and could repeat it, word for word, on demand, that wouldn't make you pro-science, anymore than it would make you a scientist.

As for what you claim I said, can you provide the exact quote from me? I bet you can't and you're just making stuff up. Bad Muslim! Don't make me get the can of coins!

Oh ya that's right you observe an ape change into a human. The theory is always say 'millions of years ago this', and millions of years ago that" ya you observed all that right?

Oh ya that's right you observe an ape change into a human. The theory is always say 'millions of years ago this', and millions of years ago that" ya you observed all that right?

Direct observation isn't required. I haven't observed gluons either... and yet, the evidence for them is pretty overwhelming. There is a large amount of indirect evidence that agrees with the predictions the theory makes, and there is a ridiculously large amount of observations of evolution occuring in real time. But of course, you discount all that. You spout nonsense about "no transient forms" and "microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn't!" You can't justify those positions - but you have them nonetheless; you believe and preclude the possibility of anything contradicting your beliefs. And when something does come along, you draw arbitrary distinctions, or failing that, plug your ears and go "la la la ... I can't hear you ... Jesus ... la la la ...".

Religion requires faith: the belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence. Science does not. Indeed, it is the diametrical opposite of religion. As I said before, I am open to the possibility that the theory of evolution is not only incomplete but perhaps even outright wrong. If new evidence comes to light that the theory cannot explain, I won't just say "NO! NO! I KNOW THE THEORY IS TRUE. SOMEONE TOLD ME IN A VISION! AND IT WAS WRITTEN DOWN BY OTHERS THAT IT'S TRUE!" But that's exactly what you and your ilk do when the evidence challenges your irrationally held beliefs.

The difference between my "belief" and yours is that mine is based on observed evidence and a theory that is falsifiable - i.e. one that makes predictions that can be tested and proven.

No. You are anti-science because you believe that faith in the absence of evidence is a valid tools of acquiring knowledge. You are anti-science because you consider supernatural answers to natural questions as valid and proper. You are anti-science because you are not willing to even consider any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are anti-science because you consider "god did it!" to be an answer.

That you are able to google the description of a cell and paste it here doesn't make you pro-science. Even if you memorized it and could repeat it, word for word, on demand, that wouldn't make you pro-science, anymore than it would make you a scientist.

As for what you claim I said, can you provide the exact quote from me? I bet you can't and you're just making stuff up. Bad Muslim! Don't make me get the can of coins!

lol the magical evolution routine did it?

I don't believe in blind faith like these christians arguing in this thread about worshipping Jesus and being saved and 'feeeeling the power' even though they don't know the bible and what it says. I believe in God through observation and rational. I never bought into priests tell me "have faith and the holy spirit will guide you and bring understanding to the trinity". That's non-sense to me. Blind faith that is.

Through science I can believe in God, seeing how the human body is made up, how the various organs of the human body are functioning and together. Eyes, brain, liver, kidneys, heart, cardiovascular system, nervous system, bones, musculature, lungs, etc... etc... Cells and various other microscopic functions within our body, understanding how they work.

They lead me to believe in God. I use my fascilities of observation, my five senses and my brain through which i rationalize and think with. Either all this magically happened through some magical process called evolution or... it was designed and engineered by a greater power. Yes God. To me your explanations are hocus pocus non-sense make belief. To you me believing in all this to be by design and engineered as hocus pocus. To you your beliefs, to me mine. However both of us employ science as a means to ascertain our beliefs. To me yours is irrational, to you, mine is 'irrational'.

You on the other hand use your eyes, have a preconcieved notion that you reject God and try to find any means necessary to justify to yourself that everything was an accident and your best explanation is some magical drawings.

In the end your belief comes down to, we come from monkies who come from rodents who ultimately come from sea creatures that ultimately come from pretty much nothing and just a bunch of accidents. Your evidence? A bunch of drawings? A bunch of ridiculous assertions, a bunch of rare bone fragments that artists can use their imagination upon, etc...

Your prophet Darwin doubted himself

Quote

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

There's nothing magical about it. What's magical is talking ants (Surah 27:18) and a mightly deity sending "swarms of flying creatures" to deal with the owners of an elephant by pelting them with stones (Surah 105).

I believe in God through observation and rational. I never bought into priests tell me "have faith and the holy spirit will guide you and bring understanding to the trinity". That's non-sense to me. Blind faith that is.

Through science I can believe in God, seeing how the human body is made up, how the various organs of the human body are functioning and together. Eyes, brain, liver, kidneys, heart, cardiovascular system, nervous system, bones, musculature, lungs, etc... etc... Cells and various other microscopic functions within our body, understanding how they work. They lead me to believe in God.

Oh absolutely. The eye is proof positive that God exists... why, it's so perfectly designed! It works across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, doesn't suffer from refractive errors, works in the dark and doesn't have a blind spot in the center. etc... etc...

I use my fascilities of observation, my five senses and my brain through which i rationalize and think with. Either all this magically happened through some magical process called evolution or... it was designed and engineered by a greater power. Yes God.

Again with the magical stuff... you know what's even more magical? That you claim that we had to be designed and engineered, but your imaginary sky-friend doesn't have any such requirements; very rational and logical! You're using those two brain-cells like there's no tomorrow!

To me your explanations are hocus pocus non-sense make belief. To you me believing in all this to be by design and engineered as hocus pocus. To you your beliefs, to me mine. However both of us employ science as a means to ascertain our beliefs. To me yours is irrational, to you, mine is 'irrational'.

The difference is that I don't have "beliefs" like yours. Beliefs like an earth that is fixed, and unmoving (Surah 27:61).

You on the other hand use your eyes, have a preconcieved notion that you reject God and try to find any means necessary to justify to yourself that everything was an accident and your best explanation is some magical drawings.

No, see you're confused: I don't reject God because of some preconceived notion. I consider "God" to be a meaningless word, that nobody has ever been able to define and provide attributes for that can stand up to rational scrutiny. The only preconceived notion that I have is that in order to believe, I must at least know what it is I'm supposed to believe in.

In the end your belief comes down to, we come from monkies who come from rodents who ultimately come from sea creatures that ultimately come from pretty much nothing and just a bunch of accidents. Your evidence? A bunch of drawings? A bunch of ridiculous assertions, a bunch of rare bone fragments that artists can use their imagination upon, etc...

Again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of what the theory of evolution actually says and the evidence that has been presented for it.

No, he didn't doubt himself. You misinterpret what Darwin is saying and twist it to your own end. Let's examine what Darwin said, shall we? That if evidence surfaced that contradicted the theory he was proposing, then his theory would have suffered a blow, perhaps a fatal one. That's certainly true. A theory that cannot explain observed evidence is worthless. This attitude, along with falsifiability, are the cornerstone of science.

That you don't understand that, again, only serves to prove one thing: that you are ignorant of what the theory of evolution says in particular, and science in general.

Please tell me when Ahmed, bigbobs, MOS or myself told you that science requires faith? That's right non of us ever said such a stupid statement so why pretend that we did.

Evolution requires faith bro, the theory is wrong, to much assumption, false assumptions, very stupid ones, the theory is no more science then religion. Any part of the theory that incorporates science I have no problem with, as with any theory out there, there are some truth to them, but the bulk of it is simply wrong and require faith in order to believe in it.